mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
ada44a669a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task is locked to the run that executes it, and the lock must be released when that run ends > - A restart between the run's terminal write and the lock release left the task locked to a dead run until a periodic sweep noticed > - The durable ownership plan moves each in-progress record onto the shared reconciler, which settles a record in its first pass after its owner is proven gone > - This pull request registers the task execution and checkout locks with the reconciler, and makes the lock release promote any messages saved behind it > - The benefit is that a task stuck behind a dead run is freed in the first reconciler pass, and its waiting messages go out at once ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831 (plan, Phase 2 sections A and C), #19838 (inventory: "Issue execution lock" and "Issue checkout lock"), #19956 (work-intent outbox), #20004 (lost-process reapers). **What happened?** The task locks were report-only kinds in the ownership registry. A lock whose run had already ended was released only by `sweepStaleIssueLocks` on its own schedule. Messages saved behind the lock then still waited out their 30-second refusal backoff. **Expected behavior** A lock whose owner run is proven ended (a terminal or missing run row) is settled by the reconciler on that proof, never by age. A lock that a same-run resume, an explicit-retry claim, a manual admission hold or a newly live run still needs is kept. ## What Changed - New `server/src/services/recovery/issue-lock-settlement.ts`: `settleIssueLock` runs the stale-lock sweep for exactly that task, so its existing compare-and-swap clear and all of its guards decide. It loads the sweep lazily. - `recovery/ownership-registry.ts`: `issue_execution_lock` and `issue_checkout_lock` register `settleIssueLock`. - `recovery/service.ts`: clearing a stale lock now calls `promoteDeferredWorkIntents(trigger: "lock_released")` before its write, in the same transaction. - The periodic sweep stays, because its pre-pass also hands lost-process runs to the single reaper (#20004). The reconciler is now the faster backstop for the lock itself. ## Verification Each focused file ran alone, in one process, on embedded Postgres: - `ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts` (25 pass). A new test covers dead, live and resuming locks: a read-only pass never settles; the dead run's lock is cleared with an `issue.stale_lock_cleared` row; the live and same-run-resume locks are kept. It fails against `master`'s registry and passes here. The test that lists settling kinds now includes both lock kinds. - `recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts` (49 pass). A new test checks that a message saved behind a stale lock is made due when the lock is cleared. It fails with `master`'s `service.ts` and passes here. - The server package typecheck passes. ## Risks - The reconciler can now clear a lock that only the periodic sweep cleared before. It goes through the same compare-and-swap and guards, so the outcome is the same, only sooner. - More passes call the sweep for a single task. Each call is scoped to one issue. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>